Early 2020 I started to change my life. Exercise, healthier food, weight control. My conclusions: I got stronger, had less back pain and less fat, felt calmer. Weight went down significantly.

After restaurants opened, I started again eating more fat and drinking more wine while continuing exercising and eating healthy at home. Strength and calm stayed, weight got up.

My conclusion: exercise is good in any aspect, but weight control also needs control of calories intake.

" Dr. Greg Jaczko, former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg, former Head of the Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Waste, Federal Environment Ministry, Germany Dr. Bernard Laponche, former Director General, French Agency for Energy Management, former Advisor to French Minister of Environment, Energy and Nuclear Safety Dr. Paul Dorfman, former Secretary UK Govt. Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters "

Reasons:

    Too costly in absolute terms to make a relevant contribution to global power production
    More expensive than renewable energy in terms of energy production and CO2 mitigation, even taking into account costs of grid management tools like energy storage associated with renewables rollout.
    Too costly and risky for financial market investment, and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and loan guarantees.
    Unsustainable due to the unresolved problem of very long-lived radioactive waste.
    Financially unsustainable as no economic institution is prepared to insure against the full potential cost, environmental and human impacts of accidental radiation release – with the majority of those very significant costs being borne by the public.
    Militarily hazardous since newly promoted reactor designs increase the risk of  nuclear weapons proliferation.
    Inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents from human error, internal faults, and external impacts; vulnerability to climate-driven sea-level rise, storm, storm surge, inundation and flooding hazard, resulting in international economic impacts.
    Subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems associated with newer unproven concepts, including ‘Advanced’ and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
    Too unwieldy and complex to create an efficient industrial regime for reactor construction and operation processes within the intended build-time and scope needed for climate change mitigation.
    Unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation needed by the 2030’s due to nuclear’s impracticably lengthy development and construction time-lines, and the overwhelming construction costs of the very great volume of reactors that would be needed to make a difference.

Anyway: in Germany the numbers are: 4 times more probable for the unvaccinated. I all depends on how people protect themselves, and that is the reason for vaccination passes: less infections, much less symptoms, much much less hospitalisations, almost no deaths in otherwise healthy people under 80 = no lockdowns.

I hope you don't work in programming or data analytics

The first case: this story is not an article. It's a press release, and I wish we would stop treating these like "scientific publications".

The second case: there is a real debate going on, on a global level: should we use vaccines for booster vaccinations, or shouldn't we first vaccinate the whole world to get control of the pandemic. This is not only a question of medicine, this is also global politics, the rich North versus the not so rich rest of the world, patents and corporations versus saving lifes – debate is inevitable.